Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Medium

PT119 S1 P1 Q2 Explanation

Definition of Prosperity

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsNon-Author OpinionSociety

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

Economists have long defined prosperity in terms of monetary value, gauging a given nation’s prosperity solely on the basis of the total monetary value of the goods and services produced annually. However, critics point out that defining prosperity solely as a function of monetary value is questionable since it fails to recognize quality of life may in fact initiate economic activity that, by the economists’ measure, bolsters prosperity.

It can also happen that communities seeking to increase their prosperity as measured strictly in monetary terms may damage their quality of life and their environment. The situation of one rural community illustrates this point: residents of the community value the local timber industry as a primary source of income, and they the harvest limitations would lower their wages or even cause the loss of jobs.

But critics of the economists’ view argue that this view of the situation overlooks a crucial consideration. Without the harvest limitations, they say, the land on which the community depends would be seriously damaged. Moreover, they point out that the residents themselves cite the abundance of natural beauty as one of the will thus lose much more—even understood in monetary terms—if the proposed harvest limits are not implemented.

Economists respond by arguing that to be a useful concept, prosperity must be defined in easily quantifiable terms, and that prosperity thus should not include difficult-to-measure values such as happiness or environmental health. But this position dodges the issue—emphasizing ease of calculation causes one to disregard substantive issues that directly influence real and quantifiable measure, but it is a poor substitute for an accurate appraisal of literary merit.

What this question is testing

Non-Author Opinion

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
2.

The example in the passage of the timber industry and its effect on a poor rural community suggests that the critics would most likely agree with which

Answer choices

  1. Too Strong: little relationship1% picked this

    Harvest limitations have little relationship to lower wages or fewer jobs

    The critics would probably be willing to accept that harvest limitations would have an effect on wages / jobs in the community. After all, the timber industry is the area's primary source of income, and harvest limitations would probably restrain how much revenue the timber industry can bring in (and thus it would affect how many jobs they can offer or how much money they can pay their workers). We can't match up any line in the passage with the notion that "harvest limitations have almost nothing to do with wages or jobs in the community".

  2. Too Strong: only when2% picked this

    Harvest limitations should be imposed only when the limitations have wide public support

    We don't have any support for the harsh, restrictive language of "harvest limitations should only be imposed when X is true". The critics are just saying that people can get shortsighted by only thinking about the immediate economic effects of harvest limitations. The critics are pointing out that when you factor in the fact that unlimited harvests would lead to spoiling the natural beauty that locals value so much, it might be a better net value to have the harvest limitations (for this community).

  3. Correct77% picked this

    The advantages to the community that would be created by harvest limitations are likely to

    Why this is right

    The final sentence of the 3rd paragraph provides good support for this: The community will thus lose much more -- even understood in monetary terms -- if the proposed harvest limits are not implemented. The author is acknowledging that if the harvest limitations are implemented, then the area will lose some income from the timber industry. But if they're not implemented, then the community will lose much more. Thus, the advantages of the harvest limitations outweigh the disadvantages.

    Skill tested: Non-Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

  4. Too Strong: primarily13% picked this

    Communities protest harvest limitations primarily because they do not understand the long-term monetary impact

    This generalizes a little too much. The critics are only commenting on this town and its harvest limitation issue. This answer is saying that usually the #1 reason that communities protest harvest limitations is that they don't understand the long-term monetary impact. The critics do seem to think that when it comes to this area, where we can tell that by citizens' decision to stay in this poorer area that they place a lot of monetary value on the abundance of natural beauty. So if they're opposing harvest limitations then they probably aren't understanding this long-term tradeoff of monetary impact. But it's not clear that this sort of situation would be broadly applicable to other communities that protest harvest limitations.

  5. Unsupported Causal Relationship7% picked this

    It is the arguments of economists that often cause residents of rural communities to view

    We have no support for the idea that "economists' arguments" are why residents of rural communities resist harvest limitations. It seems like they resist them simply because they realize the local economy depends on the timber industry.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free